You’ve indulged the presumption that my reasons differ from the Huffington Post’s? Can you point to anything in common beyond us both writing on the topic?
Second, as I wrote to someone else, it would NOT be creating an unconstitutional “religious test” for evangelicals to express concern to the GOP about their omission from the SC and to bring up that conservative Catholics are not interchangeable to evangelicals. The Constitution is LAW, not suggestions on how to think or act. What grievance do you see that Catholics could take to court here? I would say this keeps being mentioned from ignorance, somehow, but I doubt there would be confusion if this matter didn’t involve the Catholic Church.
I have posted that a SCOTUS of nine reliable Evangelicals would be fine by me as a Catholic and, like other posters, I have asked you (so far, in vain) to identify some potential Evangelical justices. I have also conceded that an Evangelical might well ask why, given Evangelical support of GOP candidates, there are only Catholics among the SCOTUS's theoretical majority.
I have posted that I cannot imagine a justiciable issue that would be determined differently by Evangelical judges than it would be by actually Catholic judges. SCOTUS is NOT going to cite Scripture as a source of secular law, if that is what you are getting at. If an Evangelical SCOTUS justice ever grounds a decision in Scripture, there probably won't be another Evangelical appointed to the Court. Likewise as to Catholic justices.
You started this thread knowing that it would stir up a hornet's nest as it has but I have tried to give you the benefit of every doubt and trying to advocate that Catholics put themselves in your moccasins rather than just react.
Since you are a member of FR, I assume that you are not in agreement with the liberalism of HuffPo.
Common beliefs you and I share? I'll make some assumptions here. I assume you agree with me on the following:
1. Jesus Christ is my personal Lord and Savior and yours.
2. There are three Persons in One God: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. This is the mystery of the Holy Trinity.
3. God the Father created the heavens and the Earth and all within them.
4. Jesus Christ is His Only begotten Son and was born of the virgin Mary.
5. Jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate and was crucified, died and was buried.
6. On the third day thereafter, He arose again from the dead.
7. Jesus Christ ascended into heaven about 40 days later and promised to send Another, the Paraclete or Holy Ghost.
8. On Pentecost, the apostles and disciples were gathered in the upper room at the Temple when the Holy Ghost descended upon them, appearing as Doves and Tongues of Fire and conferred upon those present gifts of the Holy Spirit evidenced by apostles preaching in the apostles' native languages to strangers on the Temple plaza who heard the preaching, each in his/her native language.
9. Jesus Christ sits at the right Hand of the Father from whence He will come to judge the living and the dead.
10. There is a heaven and there is a hell.
That's ten things we (Catholics and Evangelicals) presumably agree on. Probably ten more than we agree with secular humanists. People more knowledgeable than I can feel free to extend the list. SCOTUS will not be called upon to determine or even apply any of these.
Your second question: There is a civil case pending in Louisiana in which a priest (one Father Bayhi) and the Diocese of Baton Rouge and an alleged lay parishioner are being sued. The lawsuit claims that the lay parishioner sexually assaulted a child of unreported (at least here) age, that a 12 year old girl made a sacramental confession to Father Bayhi and included claims that OTHER child(ren) not in her presence were molested by the lay parishioner (who died about five months before the suit was filed). The lawyers for the plaintiff(s) claim that Fr. Bayhi had an obligation to "report" to secular authorities what he heard (if he did hear any such thing) from the 12 year old in her confession. She apparently does not claim to be a victim. Nor would it matter if she were under Canon Law.
The inviolable nature of the seal of the confessional goes back to the beginning of the Church and is extended to all other religions by our First Amendment (that was not written by Catholics but is much appreciated) as well even as to pastoral counseling and conversations between clergy and lay people related thereto. I would hope but am not certain that members of non-Catholic religions sitting as judges would be able to understand the so-called "priest/penitent privilege" against being required to testify. The Louisiana Supreme Court apparently disagrees because it overturned a conventional appellate court decision preserving the privilege and ordered that the priest testify. Fr. Bayhi cannot testify at all. If he does testify, he is excommunicated and can only be restored by direct papal action which is quite unlikely to occur.
As the Plains Indian warriors used to say before battle: Today is a good day to die! This issue is a worthy hill to die on not just for Fr. Bayhi but for every Catholic and hopefully every actual Christian in Louisiana and in the USA. Also, as Patton said, the purpose of this exercise is NOT to die for your (principles or country) but to make the other poor dumb bastard (secular humanists and those who make a false god of courts) die for his. See Little Big Horn, Battle of.
I have already conceded that there are certainly differences separating Catholics and Evangelicals but NONE that should separate us on moral matters before SCOTUS.
I fail to understand much of your complaint other than what I have covered above. I have asked you for explanations but I don't think I am getting them. This is a major reason why I have long since tired of arguing with Christians who are not Catholic on matters of religious doctrines. It is tiresome and never seems to effect any genuine rapprochement.